And yet there he is with another worthless column that calls for money.

Nouri al-Maliki is a thug. When Raed can write about that, he might have something worth saying.

Until then, he's an American who's made the decision to live here. So stop pretending to speak for the Iraqi people.

I don't dispute the notion that the Iraqi people are owed by the US. I also do not support even one dollar going to Nouri al-Maliki.

I'm very glad the State Dept. has made a point to do a reassessment of Iraq since John Kerry became Secretary of State. I think it's past time that the White House stop excusing and stop supporting Nouri al-Maliki.

You have women raped in prisons and detention centers he runs. (He refused to obey the Constitution and nominate someone to head the Ministry of Interior. This has allowed him to run it.) The UN report from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon makes clear that the Ministry of Justice allowed them to search the prisons they run; however, the Ministry of Interior would not allow inspections or visits by the UN. Nouri doesn't run the Ministry of Justice.

Nouri is a thug.

And he's gotten enough US dollars. Next year, the US gives him F-16s.

If Raed wants to help Iraqis, try writing reality about what's going on Iraq, Raed? Or are you as oblivious as the standard American couch potato?

Also, my e-mail's not working. I'll go in and change the address on the profile -- not tonight -- to common_ills@yahoo.com. That's the public e-mail address for The Common Ills. Just put "Mike" in the heading and they'll route it on to me. I mention that because Raed is one of those people who likes to dispute things.

Raed, if you e-mail me at my yahoo account right now, I won't get it. So e-mail me at common_ills@yahoo.com with your complaints, corrections of what have you.

Do people get that the US put Saddam Hussein in charge?

And we put Nouri in charge. So ten years, twenty, how long before we 'have to' invade Iraq to topple Nouri?

When your national budget is over $100 billion and you have a population of 30 million, there is no reason for any one in your country to struggle. They could give one billion to every Iraqi and still have a ton left. Do you get that?

Iraq is oil rich, so why are the people suffering? There is no excuse for it. But Nouri and his cronies are getting rich. I was listening to a conversation C.I. had two weeks ago with a reporter who'd left Iraq last month and he was telling C.I. that real estate has skyrocketed in Iraq.

But there's so much poverty!

Unless you're in the government. Then you can afford it. If you're close enough to Nouri, in fact, they can give you prime real estate on the Tigris -- the government gives you.

Nouri is so corrupt. And to not even note that? I just have no respect for Raed.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, the Iraq War was
about oil and energy, the US State Dept will reduce its presence in
Iraq, Human Rights Watch questions the US involvement (ongoing) in
counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism 'missions' that are harmful to the
Iraqi people, and more.

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator
Patty Murray (D-WA) released the following statement marking the ten-year
anniversary of the war in Iraq.

“Like all
Americans who recall the horrific events of September 11, 2001, I will never
forget the fear and destruction our nation endured on that day. I will always
remember the way Americans came together – across regions and political lines –
with courage and commitment to support our men and women in uniform who didn’t
think twice before stepping up to protect our nation.

“Unfortunately,
the focus on locating and destroying terrorist organizations that brought such
devastation upon our nation was diverted for too long by the war in Iraq, a war
I opposed and voted against authorizing. After nine years of pressing for a
responsible end to military operations in the country, I was pleased when the
last American troops finally left Iraq on December 18, 2011.

“While I did not
support the decision to enter into this conflict, I have made it my priority
over the last decade to ensure the costs – both visible and invisible – are not
forgotten. Today’s solemn anniversary must serve as a reminder that our work has
just begun. We must not waver on our duty to serve those who have served. From
education assistance and employment, to bringing down VA wait times and curbing
the tragic epidemics of suicide and military sexual trauma – the completion of
the war in Iraq does not signal the end to this work.

“I could not be
more proud of our servicemembers from Washington state and across America who
served and sacrificed honorably in Iraq, and continue to do so in Afghanistan.
And as long as there are men and women in our Armed Forces serving in harm’s
way, I remain committed to ensuring their well-being both on and off the
battlefield.”

Murray tells Mike Baker (AP) today,
"When we decide to go to war, we have to consciously be also thinking
about the cost." By contrast, former US-Senator and adviser to US
President Barack Obama (he co-chaired Barack's Deficit Committee) Alan
Simpson tells Baker that veterans should have to prove
("affluence-test") they need any money they receive from the
government. Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and
was the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee until this year
when she became Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. The State Dept
had no official statement to offer (we will note a response to questions
in today's briefing later in the snapshot). If they had, it would have
been incumbent upon them to mention the Iraqi people. The same way it
would have been incumbent upon President Barack Obama to. Barack did
issue a statement today. Whether than note it, we'll note a reaction to
it from Iraqi journalist Mina al-Oraibi.

AFP offers, "In all, at least
15 car bombs were set off, including two by suicide attackers, along
with multiple roadside bombs and gun attacks, officials said." BBC News says
"at least 50" dead and "about 100" wounded. As with most bombings
which leave many injured, the death toll may increase as the day goes
on. RTT lists the targeted as "mainly car bombs, targeted restaurants, bus stations, markets and gatherings of daily laborers in the Shia-dominated Baghdad neighborhoods." AP, The Voice of Russia and the Telegraph of London all report the death toll has already risen to 56.

Prashant Rao: . . . it is an incredibly violent place. We're still
talking about 200 people dying on a monthly basis in enormous attacks. I
mean, you said earlier 50-something people died today [in Baghdad] in
just one day. This is an incredibly high level of violence. And the
one thing about the surge that, you know, sort of critics of it will
say, it did reduce the levels of violence. That, I don't think anybody
questions. But the strategic goal of political reconciliation that is
-- never really happened. And, as your correspondent said, a lot of
people here blame the politicians for the violence. And the lack of
political reconciliation, I think, is something that could be tied
directly to that.

That's AFP's Prashant Raospeaking on France 24's Debate today.
With luck, we'll note more from that later this week in the snapshots.
But it is worth noting that French media presented a debate on Iraq
today. As opposed to the crap you might have caught on what passes in
the US for the evening news.

Today's violence must be thrilling Nouri because it prevents the media from focusing on whatAl Mada picks up:
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wrote that the UN was
prevented from entering the prisons and detention centers to check on
the prisoners -- prevented by by the Ministry of the Interior. Nouri
heads that ministry as a result of his refusing to nominated someone to
be the head of it and have Parliament confirm the candidate. This is a
power-grab and Iraqiya rightly called it that in January 2011. In his report, Ban Ki-moon notes:UNAMI
has not been granted access to detention centres under the authority of
the Interior Ministry. Many detainees and prisoners interviewed by
UNAMI in Ministry of Justice facilities and family members of persons
held in detention centres under the Interior Ministry have alleged
abuse, mistreatment and, at times, torture by authorities.

Moreover,
Maliki has used the criminal courts to silence his political opponents.
Iraq’s Sunni vice president is a fugitive in Turkey, with multiple
death sentences rendered against him for alleged terrorist activities,
though the judgments were based on the confessions of bodyguards who had
been tortured (one died during the “investigation”). An arrest warrant
has now been issued against the former finance minister, also a Sunni,
on similar charges.

In other news of Nouri's aggression, Zhu Ningzhu (Xinhua) reports, "The Iraqi cabinet on Tuesday decided to postpone the
provincial elections in the Sunni provinces of Anbar and Nineveh for a
maximum period of six months due to deterioration in security across the
country, an Iraqi official television reported." AFP reports it too. Neither notes reality.

First reality, look at the above and explain why Baghdad Province would
have elections? I'm sorry if Nouri's excuse is too much violence,
Baghdad's pretty violent. This isn't about violence, this is about
punishing the protesters.

Second, the Cabinet did not vote. Alsumaria reports
Moqtada al-Sadr has already announced his opposition to cancelling the
votes and says that it is not permissable and compares the injustice to
the founding of a second tyrant and dictator. Looks like Nouri's going
to have to lose the "Little Saddam" moniker and just be "New Saddam." NINA adds that the vote was taken in a session that the Kurds and Iraqiya weren't present at.

Liz Sly has covered Iraq for many publications and currently covers Syria (and sometimes Iraq) for the Washington Post. She Tweets today to note journalists reflecting on Iraq:

Robert Parry emerges today with an essay. Link goes to OpEd News, we don't link to Consortium News -- Parry's own site. Parry, the challenged AP
reporter who made himself a laughingstock in DC with wild-eyed
conspiracy theories decades ago -- wants a scalp, specifically Fred
Hiatt of the Washington Post. He wants Hiatt fired and rages in a
way that's actually funny. Parry considers himself a truther but all
he's done in the last four years is launch sexist attacks on Hillary
Clinton and spit polish Colin Powell's image -- an image he knows is a
lie -- working with Norman Solomon in the 90s, Parry documented it as a
lie. But Colin's boy-pal Lawrence Wilkerson comes along and Parry
pretends like the 90s never happened. Was Hiatt one sided? Maybe so.
If you think so and you think that's a problem, then maybe you expand in
your own outlet? If you want to hold Hiatt accountable, that's fine
and dandy. Hold him up for ridicule. But he's not the only one, is
he? Cynthia Tucker and the so-called Center for Public Integrity are two more that we were just addressing this morning. They are far from the only ones.

If
it was just one person, Bully Boy Bush would have been impeached, would
be on trial for War Crimes. But our desire to reduce it all to one bad
guy? It's not truthful.

Just like it's not truthful to claim --
as some outlets have in the last seven days -- that the Iraq War didn't
benefit American companies. First off, as we've stated many times
before (here
for an example), they're multi-national. This isn't the 1940s. They
have no obligations to the United States -- Congress and their boards
have seen to that. It's why they don't care that the jobs go overseas.
It was a natural resource war that opened markets. Antonia Juhasz (CNN) explains:Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years
since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while
most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil
companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion,
Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to
Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized
and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

In 2000, the Council
on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public
Policy of Rice University put forward "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century:"For many decades the United States has not had a
comprehensive energy policy. Now, the consequences of this
complacency have revealed themselves in California. Now, there
could be more California-like situations in America’s
future. President George W. Bush and his administration need
to tell these agonizing truths to the American people and lay
the basis for a comprehensive, long-term U.S. energy security
policy.That Americans face long-term situations such as frequent
sporadic shortages of energy, energy price volatility, and
higher energy prices is not the fault of President Bush. The
failure to fashion a workable energy policy rests at the feet
of both Democrats and Republicans. Both major political
parties allowed energy policy to drift despite its centrality
to America’s domestic economy and to national security.
Energy policy was permitted to drift even though oil price
spikes preceded virtually every American recession since the
late 1940s. The American people must know about this situation
and be told as well that there are no easy or quick solutions
to today’s energy problems. The president has to begin
educating the public about this reality and start building a
broad base of popular support for the hard policy choices
ahead.This executive summary and the full report address the
following questions. What are the potential effects of the
critical energy situation for the United States? How did this
critical energy situation arise? What are the U.S. policy
options to deal with the energy situation? What should the
United States do now?

As we reduce gasoline supplies, we must
act to insure that the remaining gasoline available is used wisely and
conserved to the fullest possible extent. Therefore, as a second
step, I am asking tonight that all gasoline filling stations close down
their pumps between 9 p.m. Saturday night and midnight Sunday every
weekend, beginning December 1. We are requesting that this step be taken
voluntarily now. Upon passage of the emergency energy
legislation before the Congress, gas stations will be required to close
during these hours. This step should not result in any serious hardship
for any American family. It will, however, discourage long-distance
driving during weekends. It will mean perhaps spending a little more
time at home. This savings alone is only a small part of what we
have to conserve to meet the total gasoline shortage. We can achieve
substantial additional savings by altering our driving habits. While the
voluntary response to my request for reduced driving speeds has been
excellent, it is now essential 'that we have mandatory and full
compliance with this important step on a nationwide basis. And
therefore, the third step will be the establishment of a maximum speed
limit for automobiles of 50 miles per hour nationwide as soon as our
emergency energy legislation passes the Congress. We expect that this
measure will produce a savings of 200,000 barrels of gasoline per day.
Intercity buses and heavy-duty trucks, which operate more efficiently at
higher speeds and therefore do not use more gasoline, will be permitted
to observe a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. The fourth step we
are taking involves our jet airliners. There will be a phased reduction
of an additional 15 percent in the consumption of jet fuel for passenger
flights bringing the total reduction to approximately 25 percent. These
savings will be achieved. by a careful reduction in schedules, combined
with an increase in passenger loads. We will not have to stop air
travel, but we will have to plan for it more carefully. The fifth
step involves cutting back on outdoor lighting. As soon as the
emergency energy legislation passes the Congress, I shall order the
curtailment of ornamental outdoor lighting for homes and the elimination
of all commercial lighting except that which identifies places of
business. In the meantime, we are already planning right here at
the White House to curtail such lighting that we would normally have at
Christmastime, and I am asking that all of you act now on a voluntary
basis to reduce or eliminate unnecessary lighting in your homes.

The extremely cold weather this winter has dangerously depleted our
supplies of natural gas and fuel oil and forced hundreds of thousands of
workers off the job. I congratulate the Congress for its quick action
on the Emergency Natural Gas Act, which was passed today and signed just
a few minutes ago. But the real problem—our failure to plan for the
future or to take energy conservation seriously—started long before this
winter, and it will take much longer to solve.

I realize that many of you have not believed that we really have an
energy problem. But this winter has made all of us realize that we have
to act.

Now, the Congress has already made many of the preparations for energy
legislation. Presidential assistant Dr. James Schlesinger is beginning
to direct an effort to develop a national energy policy. Many groups of
Americans will be involved. On April 20, we will have completed the
planning for our energy program and will immediately then ask the
Congress for its help in enacting comprehensive legislation.

Our program will emphasize conservation. The amount of energy being
wasted which could be saved is greater than the total energy that we are
importing from foreign countries. We will also stress development of
our rich coal reserves in an environmentally sound way; we will
emphasize research on solar energy and other renewable energy sources;
and we will maintain strict safeguards on necessary atomic energy
production.

Energy concerns pre-date Bully Boy
Bush. After the Supreme Court installed Bush and Cheney into the White
House following a disputed election that, if no recounts were done,
should have been decided by the Congress, not the unelected Supreme
Court, Dick Cheney started his energy task force -- a task force that
met in secret and that he didn't want the public to know about.
Right-wing watchdog Judicial Watch sued
-- along with the Sierra Club -- and, due to a court order, the
Commerce Dept was forced to turn over some documents from the Cheney
Energy Task force which included "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines,
refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and
gas projects, and Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts. The
documents, which are dated March 2001 [. . . .]." The documents were
turned over in July of 2003, after the Iraq War started. The fact that
they prompted no intense media discussions goes to the fact that they
weren't really that surprising. Project Censored did take it seriously and noted:

Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September
11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the
dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President,
Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task
Force and why its operations should be open to the public.”When first assuming office in early 2001, President Bush’s top
foreign policy priority was not to prevent terrorism or to curb the
spread of weapons of mass destruction-or any of the other goals he
espoused later that year following 9-11. Rather, it was to increase the
flow of petroleum from suppliers abroad to U.S. markets. In the months
before he became president, the United States had experienced severe oil
and natural gas shortages in many parts of the country, along with
periodic electrical power blackouts in California. In addition, oil
imports rose to more than 50% of total consumption for the first time in
history, provoking great anxiety about the security of the country’s
long-term energy supply. Bush asserted that addressing the nation’s
“energy crisis” was his most important task as president.The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force
charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy
requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign
contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney,
former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force
formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing
possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a
declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.

The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.Appointed
by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four
presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for
a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.In
his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who
served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades,
writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to
acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'

After the publication of Greenspan's book, Bob Woodward (Washington Post) interviewed him and reported, "Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could
translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the
recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more
would mean 'chaos' to the global economy." A year later, as Patrick Martin (WSWS) noted,
then GOP presidential candidate John McCain would declare, "My friends,
I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will
eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East. That will prevent
us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again
in the Middle East."

It was a resource war. It became part of
the national energy policy. And the reason Bully Boy Bush hasn't been
punished is that, for all the fuming, it's not just Republicans. Many
Democrats were on board. And many outlets were as well. The people
were largely 'shielded' from the truth for various reasons but that's
what the Iraq War was about. Even before the illegal war started, there
were people who rightly noted that it would be a war for oil. But
those voices were mocked and silenced. And a large number of people who
heard those voices chose not to believe that 'my country' could do such
a thing.

It's that segment that the shielding was necessary
for. Those of us against the war were going to protest regardless. But
'settling on a reason,' as Paul Wolfowitz put it to Vanity Fair
in May 2003, was about selling the Iraq War and building support for
it. There is a chance that they could have built support for it
honestly. They could have tried to fire up the country in a "We will
have this oil!" type of manner. Marauders have existed historically for
decades. The Danish marauders (that would be the Vikings), for
example, attacked England beginning in 793. And maybe there would have
been support in the US for the attack on Iraq if the administration had
chosen to sell it as, "We'll have the oil we need!" And maybe in
England and Australia as well -- where Tony Blair and John Howard were
pulling their armies into the war. But the danger then would not be
domestic. The danger then would be that the world would not just
condemn but declare war on the US, the UK and Australia. Because
without the lie of 'liberation' -- without that noble lie that Plato
established the need for in The Republic -- invading Iraq for oil is just a crime. "An illegitimate act of aggression," as Kamrul Idris (New Strait Times) notes the Malaysian government called it in real time.

I mean, we know that in politics people have to
simplify and there's a certain amount of spin, and we accept that. But
when it comes to building the basis for such things as sending soldiers
into the field, I think you demand more than just simple spin that you
have in day-to-day politics. And I think that the politicians
who took part have smarted from that, and rightly, because it was
somewhat frivolous, I think what they - bad judgment. I have not said
that they were in bad faith. But I think they showed poor judgment and
they certainly did not exercise critical thinking that they should have
done before sending Iraq to war and Americans in the field.

A
lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans were in on this and made a
practical decision. Not all. Some like Senator Patty Murray and Russ
Feingold were firmly against the war. Some like, to offer a Republican
and someone who did vote for the war, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
honestly believed there were chemical weapons -- she spent the weeks
before the start of the war addressing that topic in a variety of forums
as she insisted the Pentagon needed to provide the military with better
equipment for the chemical attack she feared was coming. But most
politicians and most outlets knew this was not about chemical weapons or
anything but grabbing the oil. That's why there's been no
Congressional investigation into the Iraq War despite the fact that it
was based on lies. That's why the US media cares so little about Iraq.

So
many events led up to Iraq. There was the national energy policy,
there was the oil, there was Enron which spooked people domestically,
there was the 9-11 attack (which Iraq had nothing to do with) that for
the first time made some Americans believe there was a problem. But we
didn't explore the problem, we didn't discuss it and we didn't address
it. Those who tried to were demonized. And if you're on the left and
just puffed your chest out, stop it. Did you do a damn thing when the
same type of b.s. was pulled on Bob Woodward? No? Didn't think so.
You're as quick to use the same methods as your political opponents.

The
demonization is really important. And let's clarify. Robert Parry
today is not demonizing Fred Hiatt. He's critiquing him and he can use
any tone he wants for that. But when Media Matters and others decide
that the play for the day is attack Bob Woodward, that's demonization.
When you're rushing to join the public stoning of someone, that's
demonization. Your goal is not just to discredit them, your goal is not
just to shut them up. Your goal is to bloody them and put their head
on a spike in the public sphere so no one will ever 'transgress' again.
Under Bush, it was done to Susan Sontag, to the Dixie Chicks. to
Cynthia McKinney and many more. And let's be clear that it wasn't just
done by the right. The right's demonized Jane Fonda
for years. It hasn't stopped her career. For the demonizing to be
effective, people from across the aisle have to join in. So, with
Cynthia McKinney, you saw The Nation magazine not defend her but ridicule for her hair. I wonder what the token African-American columnists at The Nation
think of that? There was only one when McKinney was ridiculed and she
never said a word. I believe they have three now. Any of them want to
reflect on that? Under Barack, the demonization continues because
neither side knows how to create, they know only how to copy and a copy
of a copy of a copy of a copy . . . becomes less and less authentic --
which is what the American people are beginning to wake up to.

They
could have woken up to a new world, one where Americans were as
informed about the world as others. Instead, it was refuse to address
what might anger people and instead use the shock of "We were attacked"
to instill fear and to take that fear of al Qaeda and transfer to
Afghanistan and Iraq and the whole 'Axis of Evil.' A people afraid will
support nearly anything -- for an example, see the US PATRIOT Act.

If
Fred Hiatt were guilty of all Robert Parry thinks he is, I would say,
"And your point is?" Because is there some larger point here or are we
again to the fact that you were a DC based Big Media journalist whose
career imploded and the Post and the Graham family owned Newsweek which fired you?

Politicians
and journalists and media owners who considered themselves 'realists'
saw the war for oil as necessary. If Parry wants to connect Hiatt to
that group, go for it. Otherwise, what's the point? Hiatt's hired to
oversee and participate in opinion. Parry's written an indictment
against Hiatt which fails to indict. Hiatt captured the White House
message? Well, that's one of the tasks he was hired for, to convey that
to the public. I don't think a lot of people will get bent out of
shape by that.

[I didn't then and don't now read the Post editorials.
If I quote one here, it's because a friend pointed it out. I don't
read any columnist regularly these days. Before the site started, I
religiously read Molly Ivins -- and continued reading her up to her last
column, Maureen Dowd -- who I have criticized and who I have praised
here and at Third, Ruth Rosen, Bob Herbert and Robert Scheer. In terms
of newspaper columnists, that was generally it. I read newspapers for
the 'reports' and get more than enough opinion in those. I'm referring
to physical newspapers in these bracketed sentences -- that you hold in
your hands -- and not including online reading.]

A
last word on Robert Parry's nonsense. We stayed with his theme. Had I
the time, I'd offer an extensive fact check on his details and examples
-- Parry's gotten very loose with the facts. We'll offer one example.
Parry writes:

In June 2005, for instance, the Washington Post decided to ignore the
release of the "Downing Street Memo" in the British press. The "memo" --
actually minutes of
a meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national
security team on July 23, 2002 -- recounted the words of MI6 chief
Richard Dearlove who had just returned from discussions with his
intelligence counterparts in Washington.

The paper
ignored the memo until June? That's not accurate. It's also not
accurate to suggest that Hiatt, editor of the editorial page, is
responsible for the entire paper. March 10th, at Third, we wrote "Editorial: Today we're all Michael Kinsley?:"

In America, the Downing Street Memo was initially and largely ignored.

The
Walter Pincus link goes to a May 13, 2005 article by Walter Pincus
entitled "British intelligence warned of Iraq War." It's hard to claim
that "in June 2005, for instance, the Washington Post decided to
ignore the release of the 'Downing Street Memo' in the British press"
when the Post had reported on it May 13, 2005. There are many other
mistakes. There's also an error of understanding that goes to what
we'll address tomorrow. In the meantime, Hannah Allam (McClatchy Newspapers) offers a fact check today on media spin about Iraq. Most of the US media wants to avoid Iraq in any significant terms.

Not
unlike the State Dept. 10th anniversary, slammed with violence, so
spokesperson Victoria Nuland (Dick Cheney's former Deputy Advisor on
National Security) handled it like a hot potato:

QUESTION: Iraq?MS. NULAND: Yeah.QUESTION: Marking the 10th
anniversary of the war today, the Iraqis marked that event with a
barrage of bombardments all across the country – 60 people at least
dead, 200 wounded. Would you say that the Iraq War is probably the
biggest U.S. foreign policy blunder?MS. NULAND: Said, I’m going to leave the judgments to – with
regard to the larger issue to the historians to – Michael Gordon and
company here. The President has spoken on the 10th
anniversary of the Iraq War today. I spoke about our relationship with
Iraq 10 years on about two days ago, or on Friday, about the progress
that we’ve seen in Iraq, but about the work that we still need to see
going forward.With regard to events today, let me simply say that the United States
strongly condemns the terrorist attacks today that targeted innocent
men, women, and children throughout Iraq. This kind of senseless
violence such as this tears at the fabric of Iraqi unity. Our
condolences go out to the families of the victims. We will continue our
efforts to work with the Government of Iraq to combat al-Qaida and other
threats to peace and security and unity in the country. That is the
basis of our strategic partnership with Iraq and all the work we do
together on security, on economic development, on stability across the
country. It’s still difficult, but extremely important.

And that was it. Will anyone ever ask her what sort of advise she gave Cheney on invading Iraq? No, of course not.

The US State Dept is decreasing their role in Iraq (I credit John Kerry) which is good news. AFP quotes
US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft stating today, "A year ago, we
were well above 16,000, now we're at 10,500. By the end of this year,
we'll be at
5,500, including contractors." This is good news. Now losing more US
property isn't and Congress will explore that in the House, I'm sure,
and we'll cover it as we did last time and the US press will ignore all
that emerges from the hearing -- as they did last time. But it's good
news because the State Dept doesn't need to get any more mixed up in the
brutality that the US is a part of currently in Iraq with the CIA, FBI,
counter-terrorism troops, Special Ops and others that remain. (The
State Dept is already in that mix, I said "doesn't need to get any more
mixed up.") Human Rights Watch notes today:

New information emerged as recently as early March 2013 indicating that
the US government is pursuing a policy of engagement with Iraqi security
forces accused of responsibility for torture and other abuses, with
little if any consideration of accountability for those abuses. A Wall
Street Journal report said that the CIA is “ramping up support” to the Iraqi Counterterrorism Service (CTS) to “better fight Al-Qaeda affiliates.”

“If correct, the report that the US intends to support the Iraqi
Counterterrorism Service underscores the poor US record on addressing
allegations of abuses by Iraqi security forces,” Whitson said. “The CTS,
though accused of committing serious abuses against detainees, worked
closely with US Special Forces before the US troop withdrawal in 2011.”

In 2011, Human Rights Watch reported former
detainees’ allegations that the CTS had held them in secret jails and
had tortured and committed other abuses against them. The alleged abuses
included beatings, applying electric shocks to their genitals and other
body parts, repeated partial asphyxiation with plastic bags until they
passed out, and suspension by the ankles.

The US authorities should make public the nature of US military and
intelligence agency cooperation with the CTS and other Iraqi security
forces that are alleged to have committed serious abuses but have
escaped accountability, Human Rights Watch said. The US should also
conduct public investigations into allegations of complicity of US
military personnel and coalition forces in torture and other abuses by
Iraqi security forces during the occupation and prosecute those
responsible, including senior-level officials.

This will be covered again tomorrow because it fits in with counter-insurgency and Wolfowitz.

The
Feminist Factor: More than Half of 2012 Women Voters Identify Themselves as
Feminists

A newly
released voter poll finds that feminists – not just women in general – were key
to the 2012 election results: fully 55 percent of women voters self-identified
as feminists.Political
pundits declared the day after the vote that women voters and the gender gap had
decided the outcome. A poll of those women voters, conducted by Lake Research
Partners for Ms. Magazine, the Feminist Majority Foundation and CCMC,
documents the existence of a strong "The Feminist Factor."That’s the
title of an article in the current issue of Ms. Magazine by Ms.
publisher Eleanor Smeal as part of the magazine’s observance of Women’s History
Month.“As we move
forward after the elections of 2012, it’s time to acknowledge that it wasn't
just women who made a critical different in reelecting President Barack Obama,
but feminists,” Smeal wrote. She continued, “Now it’s time to add another
metric beyond the gender gap to our post-election analysis: ‘the feminist
factor.’”The Feminist
Factor, as outlined in the magazine, is the proportion of
voters who self-identify as feminists across various demographics - by race,
age, religion, region of the country and more – and their subsequent voting
behavior. Ms.
Magazine has asked this question on voter polls since 2006. Facts about the Feminist Factor in
2012:

A
majority of women voters, 55 percent, self-identified as feminists in
2012 when asked “Do you consider yourself to be a strong feminist,
feminist, not a feminist or anti-feminist? When given the dictionary definition
on a follow-up question, a super-majority of 68 percent said YES. The dictionary
definition of a feminist is: “someone who supports political, economic and
social equality for women.”

The
Feminist Factor is at an all-time high and has increased by 9 points since
2008. Charts on the Ms. website show trends over the
years.

The
Feminist Factor is especially strong among women in the emerging and expanding
electorate of young women under 30, African-American women and
Latinas.

Eleanor
Smeal, Publisher of Ms. and President of the Feminist Majority
Foundation, and Kathy Spillar, Executive Editor of Ms. and Executive Vice
President of the Feminist Majority Foundation are available for further
interviews.For more
information about the voter poll, about men who consider themselves feminists
and other break-outs from the results, contact: CCMC, Kathy Bonk kbonk@ccmc.org 202-258-6767 or Andrea
Camp,acamp@ccmc.org (443)
851-1462.

You have
received this e-mail because of your interest in promotions and Ms. magazine. To
unsubscribe, please click here.1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 801, Arlington, VA 22209 |
703.522.2214 | webmaster@feminist.org

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.